HMS Invincible

Good to hear that the concept of “design for maintainability” was understood by the designers.

I agree that in a crisis all sorts of things can be done much faster than normal (cf my comments (and links) above and elsewhere aboat Sea Harriers stored or at the Culdrose dummy deck*), however, Invincible has been largely cannibalised to keep Illustrious and Ark Royal going.

Unfortunately this is now common across the fleet, with nagative effects on readiness and the ability of suppliers to produce spares and components in a hurry, and yes, it has cost jobs.

Of course Invincible has donated a lot of her components to keep her sisters running, better to do that than have valuable parts left to rot. The Invincibles were designed on the principle of ‘upkeep by replacement’, which means unlike the previous generation of steam powered warships, all the essential ‘moving parts’ can be easily removed and replaced as required. A steam powered warship had her Turbines and Boilers installed during construction, and they would remain in situ for 30 or more years. Similarly any armament and weapons would be expected to remain aboard for the life of the ship unless a mid life refit was required, in which case the ship would be partially demolished and rebuilt to acomodate the new systems. Reconstruction isn’t required with the ‘plug and play’ principle, Invincible is an empty hulk at the moment, no engines, radars, weapons and little else inside other than her infrastructure. That’s all she needs. Everything else can be re installed without great difficulty. She recieved a major overhaul just two years before paying off, so her wiring, plumbing and much else of her basic infrastructure has already been renewed, ie the hull may date back to the 70s but everything required to make her work (electricity supplies to all systems for example) is only a few years old.

The RN was IMHO fairly far sighted in having her overhauled knowing she would be mothballed soon after, and by removing so much equipment from her to return to the ‘pool’ of parts used by not just her sister but a number of other ships in the fleet, keeps those systems ‘in circulation’ for much longer and makes the job of inspecting Invincible’s internal hull a lot easier. The process of ‘parts donation’ is very different from when HMS Eagle was canniballised to provide parts to keep her sister HMS Ark Royal running in the 70s, or when HMS Lion was similarly stripped of parts to keep HMS Tiger in service. Those ‘donor’ ships had their complicated steam pipework ripped out to provide the spares needed for their sisters, systems which were never designed to be easily replaced. The parties of engineers sent to those ships to remove said parts did so on the understanding that the donor ships would not put to sea again so inflicting ‘collateral damage’ when removing whatever they were after was acceptable. Also, donor ships had their dehumidifiers removed before the stripping process began.

Aboard Invincible, the dehumidifiers are still running, and this is the same process that allowed the Americans to retain their Battleships in a viable condition form the 50s to the 80s when they were successfully reactivated. To the best of my knowledge, no one has been removing parts from Invincible with sledgehammers or blow torches, but then because of her design they wouldn’t need to. I’m sure at least part of the reason she has been retained in good condition is the MOD has harboured a hope they can sell her as a going concern, since at the time she paid off there would have been close to zero profit in scrapping her (towing costs to Turkey or India would have wiped out any profit margin). The Indian Navy remains a potential customer given their current problems with the Vikramaditya and the age of the Viraat. A distant possibilty yes, but there nonetheless, and the existence of Invincible as an option for India allows some bargaining leverage for India and helps maintain the relationship between India and Britain. There are other potential customers too…

I agree that in a crisis all sorts of things can be done much faster than normal (cf my comments (and links) above and elsewhere aboat Sea Harriers stored or at the Culdrose dummy deck*), however, Invincible has been largely cannibalised to keep Illustrious and Ark Royal going.

Unfortunately this is now common across the fleet, with nagative effects on readiness and the ability of suppliers to produce spares and components in a hurry, and yes, it has cost jobs.

BAE Systems recently redelivered a Sea Harrier to the Indian Navy, it had been damaged in a landing mishap and was returned to the UK for a rebuild. Presumably, in addition to the work by BAE Systems themselves, a number of components (airframe and other) would have had to have been manufactured specially. Build to print is alive and well!

And there are still a few Sea Harriers (and one or two T8N trainers) in MOD hands – such as these here or here.

This possibility was/is mentioned on the more recent pages of the (legendary/notorious/extremely long) PPRuNe Sea Jet thread.

I expect the might Sea Harrier could be regenerated a lot faster than poor old Invincible.

I saw Invincible up close (stood on the quayside about 30 ft away, is that close enough?) not too long ago. She looked in good condition overall, though the dehumidifiers were clogging up the hull openings somewhat. She certainly looked better then Ark Royal did back in the 90s when she occupied the same berth in the same stripped out condition, for four years or more. She was returned to service without too much difficulty. Also remember that in wartime, restrictions on dockyard working conditions which make refits take so long disappear and work which in peacetime is assumed to require years can be completed in months if not weeks. In 1982 the LPD HMS Intrepid had been decommissioned and was being readied for disposal. She was returned to full commission in a couple of weeks and sailed for the Falklands. I’m not saying Invincible could be recommissioned in a couple of weeks by any means, but I have no doubt she could be made ready for sea in an emergency in under six months (given the peacetime estimate of 18 months), with a further four to six month period to work up the crew. This would only come about in a conflict scenario that was ongoing (eg like the operations in Iraq and the Stan, as opposed to a short term conflict like the Falklands) and requiring the presence of at least one carrier and one LPH on station for long periods.

As to the Harrier production line, well they might not be making any whole new airframes but BAe retain the capacity to manufacture new components (eg new tails) for existing airframes, in order to extend the airframe life.

BAE Systems recently redelivered a Sea Harrier to the Indian Navy, it had been damaged in a landing mishap and was returned to the UK for a rebuild. Presumably, in addition to the work by BAE Systems themselves, a number of components (airframe and other) would have had to have been manufactured specially. Build to print is alive and well!

And there are still a few Sea Harriers (and one or two T8N trainers) in MOD hands – such as these here or here.

This possibility was/is mentioned on the more recent pages of the (legendary/notorious/extremely long) PPRuNe Sea Jet thread.

I expect the might Sea Harrier could be regenerated a lot faster than poor old Invincible.

Production is very firmly closed now. No more harriers i’m afraid, not without a massive industrial effort, or buying second hand from the spams.

Also there are not enough qualified carrier pilots to put all harriers to fill three invincibles to sea.

Carrier Quals in the Harrier takes a few days. It’s a lot easier than for conventional aircraft (ie cat and trap). Before the ‘Stan started screwing up deployments all the JFH sqns would get their CarQuals over every year in a two week period. Now they are out of the Stan for good I think they’ll quietly slip back into the routine. It would be pretty easy to get every pilot in the three frontline JFH sqns ‘CarQualled’ before the end of the year, depending on their schedule.

As to the Harrier production line, well they might not be making any whole new airframes but BAe retain the capacity to manufacture new components (eg new tails) for existing airframes, in order to extend the airframe life.

From memory there are 67 or so harriers, all of these are being, or have been upgraded to GR.9 standard. In addition there are 9 two seaters operated by the OCU.

3 Squadrons of 9 Aircraft Eact plus the OCU. If we want to be charitable we can seperate the NSW and call it 4 squadrons of 9 aircraft, giving 36 operational airframes. Enlarge all four squadrons to 12 aircraft and 48 Harriers are now being used. That give 19 Attrition spares, but remember that the production line *might* still exist as they were building replacement airframes until only a couple of years ago.

Each carrier can probably carry a dozen Harriers plus another dozen helicopters, so event with Invincible available there are more Harriers then can fit on the carriers.

Production is very firmly closed now. No more harriers i’m afraid, not without a massive industrial effort, or buying second hand from the spams.

Also there are not enough qualified carrier pilots to put all harriers to fill three invincibles to sea.

I don’t know why they don’t describe her as being ‘laid up in ordinary’ just like they did in the old days. Those ships were effectively empty hulls with most fittings removed but available to be reactivated with lots of work.

In terms of aircraft, aren’t we now only operating approx 30 Harriers in total with the rest unavailable ?

From memory there are 67 or so harriers, all of these are being, or have been upgraded to GR.9 standard. In addition there are 9 two seaters operated by the OCU.

3 Squadrons of 9 Aircraft Eact plus the OCU. If we want to be charitable we can seperate the NSW and call it 4 squadrons of 9 aircraft, giving 36 operational airframes. Enlarge all four squadrons to 12 aircraft and 48 Harriers are now being used. That give 19 Attrition spares, but remember that the production line *might* still exist as they were building replacement airframes until only a couple of years ago.

Each carrier can probably carry a dozen Harriers plus another dozen helicopters, so event with Invincible available there are more Harriers then can fit on the carriers.

I don’t know why they don’t describe her as being ‘laid up in ordinary’ just like they did in the old days. Those ships were effectively empty hulls with most fittings removed but available to be reactivated with lots of work.

In terms of aircraft, aren’t we now only operating approx 30 Harriers in total with the rest unavailable ?

+ aircraft.

Aircraft themselves wouldn’t be an issue, there are plenty of RN Helicopters and RAF GR.9’s, the problem is finding the air and ground crew to support the Harriers.

WRT Devonport and Pompey, the proposals are supposedly just that – proposals. Putting the bulk of the surface fleet is not a good idea security wise, and as you say, Devonport is larger.

Hmmmmm…..

4) The biggest problem for putting her back in service would probably not be her material state, but finding the crew to take her to sea.

+ aircraft.

1) She’s been on 18 months notice since she decommissioned, its been on the wikipedia article ever since she decommissioned

2) The Invincible class along with all the ship classes since are designed to be able to swap engines rapidly instead of spending the time to repair them, so engines are easy to put back into her.

3) The propellers on deck are not a problem since she’d probably need a fairly substantial refit before she could reenter service anyway.

4) The biggest problem for putting her back in service would probably not be her material state, but finding the crew to take her to sea.

HMS Invincible is dead in the water

27 June 2009
By Matt Jackson
Defence correspondent
The government claims she is part of the fleet, ready to be called upon to defend the country if needed.
But today The News can reveal the truth about how HMS Invincible – supposedly in a state of ‘extended readiness’ – is in fact a warship far from ready for action.

The Ministry of Defence claims she is available for action until September 2010, when she will leave the fleet.

But a Freedom of Information request by The News reveals she is crewed by just four people as she languishes in Portsmouth’s dockyard.

She has been raided for spares – her engines have been stripped out and her propellers have been seen lying on her deck.

And far from being ready for service, navy sources say it would take around 18 months to prepare Invincible for use – a period which would take her well past the date she is scheduled to end her days in the Royal Navy.

Her sorry state is a far cry from the description of her on the Royal Navy’s website which claims she can be counted among the navy’s finest.

The description refers to her decommissioning in 2005 by saying: ‘This process is often mistaken for being withdrawn from service but we are still very much ‘part of the fleet’.

‘In fact Invincible will remain available to the navy until 2010.

‘This forms part of a long-term plan to assist with the introduction of the new CVF Aircraft Carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince Of Wales.’

Portsmouth South MP Mike Hancock, who sits on the Commons defence committee, said: ‘Saying HMS Invincible is part of the fleet and available to the navy is the same as saying the Marie Celeste had a full ship’s company in healthy mood.

‘All of our ships bar submarines are visible to anyone and it doesn’t take a genius to work out that Invincible isn’t going anywhere.

‘The navy should be more open, and not claiming capabilities we don’t have.’

Former naval officer and editor of Warship World, Mike Critchley, said: ‘As far as I’m aware she doesn’t even have her anchors, which tells you how likely the chances of her going to sea are.

‘She has been stripped of most valuable items for the other carriers, which makes sense, but that means the only time she is going to sea is when she leaves for the breaker’s yard.’

Despite The News’s findings, the Royal Navy insisted the carrier was still available to the fleet.

A navy spokesman said: ‘It is not Royal Navy policy to discuss the readiness state of any warship for operational reasons.

‘The position is that HMS Invincible remains within the Royal Navy fleet and remains available until the time that she leaves service.

‘Four navy personnel remain on the scheme of complement of HMS Invincible and act as a full-time caretaking unit.’

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/HMS-Invincible-is-dead-in.5407433.jp

I’d look forward to it, I could join the Navy without having to go more than 20 miles from home to do it.

And that really is the west country way!

eyes married to a wet c’untry gurl so eyes can’t.

I think Bristol would be perfect, it was after all the home of the original School of Navigation.

Move Dartmouth to Weston-Super-mud, that would be a real test of character.

Oh now you’re starting on Weston? Actually it’s a ****hole, well done. But to be fair it could actually be a good naval air station. It’s got the history (Westland used to operate there) and an old RAF base there too.

But the Severn estuary would be a decent place for a naval base.

I’d look forward to it, I could join the Navy without having to go more than 20 miles from home to do it.

Oi! Enough of the Westcountry bashing.

eyes married to a wet c’untry gurl so eyes can’t.

I think Bristol would be perfect, it was after all the home of the original School of Navigation.

Move Dartmouth to Weston-Super-mud, that would be a real test of character.

Oi! Enough of the Westcountry bashing.

Affectionate I assure you

An tis proper coider an all none of yer fizzy* muck

*GASsy 🙂

Oi! Enough of the Westcountry bashing.

We’ll just cut off your cider. 😛

An tis proper coider an all none of yer fizzy* muck

*GASsy 🙂